Ostensibly, our readings focus on children and new media this week—but the most interesting thread is the role of social context in dictating the use and influence of these technologies. In the Jackson et. al project, predominantly poor African Americans were given access to the internet in their homes and studied for sixteen months. In Japan, Ito and Okabe explored youth usage of mobile phones for text messaging. And, in Israel, Mesch and Talmud explore the nature and quality of social relationships online and off. Thus far, we have already explored the technologies at stake in these articles; what stands out this week are the different utilizations across cultures.
In the Jackson piece, the basic findings is that, even after providing access to the internet in the home, usage is low and the impact not pronounced. The researchers’ explanation for this is that, without context, the participants simply did not have use for the internet. If communication is the primary driver of use, the participants were from a segment of society that, by-and-large, was not online and, consequently, they had nobody to communicate with online. In addition, other common tasks—like online banking or shopping—may have been less attractive to the participants because they simply did not have the money. Other outcomes—social, psychological, and cognitive—were minimized by low-usage. (The researchers suggest that there were significant cognitive impacts—that high users had better GPAs than low users—but I got a little lost in the path model and couldn’t figure out whether GPA at outset was controlled for…) Kids in Israel, on the other hand, are steeped enough in internet use that Mesch & Talmud could effectively compare the strength of their online and offline relationships. (The most amazing part of this study was the response rate: just about 99%!) In a way, the findings kind of echo Jacksons: compared to offline interaction, online interaction is simply too new/limited to be an equal. Yet, it is simply a given that these children are online and are making new relationships in this space.
The Ito and Okabe article discusses the specifics of a technologies use in a particular culture. They explore the ways in which Japanese youth are able to escape parental/societal surveillance and interact via text messages. Many facets of the society itself drive the usage: the prevalence of small homes, the possibility of living at home during and even after college, and fairly regimented work, school, and public spaces. In addition, care not to disturb others is a cultural value expressed in many nuances of mobile phone usage in Japan. Respondents report texting instead of calling on public transit, texting friends to verify availability before calling, and even texting in the home as a way to mollify co-present parents. Essentially, all of the circumstances add up to a perfect environment for texting to flourish—and it clearly has. To a lesser extent, many of the same motivators exist in other societies—and it seems that texting is less common as well.
1. Was the academic finding in the Jackson et. al study real?
2. In studying the adoption of new communication technologies around the world, what are some other examples of environment and technology dovetailing like Japan and texting?
3. Back to the digital divide: will municipal wifi and $100 computers eventually breakdown the segmentation problem that Jackson et al ran into? Are there other forces at work besides affordability? (We discussed the presence of interesting content before…)
Comments (4)
You might already be aware of this article, but in response to your second question I would point to Sandra Suarez (Temple: 2005) who wrote on the empowering nature of text messaging in response to political mismanagement of information. According to her piece (Mobile Democracy) she outlines how this new media (SMS) allowed citizens to engage in greater collective action in preparation to the 2004 Spanish general election. Basically the convenience of the technology fostered the call for mobilization at a crucial point in the time prior to voting. She reports how weak tie networks were tapped to rapidly inform citizens and ultimately mobilized them to engage more intensely within the political process (higher voter turnout).
There have also been plenty of stories about security concerns in regards to camera phone use in business sectors (corporate espionage). Positive examples that come to mind are stories about girls capturing sexual harassment on public transit or agricultural societies adopting new media to make more informed decisions about how to cultivate higher quality produce and efficiently distribute in various economic markets.
I think the most important idea to keep in mind in regards to your third question is the interplay between cultural and technological literacy.
Posted by g4 | November 2, 2006 8:50 PM
Posted on November 2, 2006 20:50
With regard to Jackson et al., what they found was that African Americans use the Internet less for communication with others. I am not sure whether they use less for other purposes such as information search and entertainment.
My question becomes what aspect of internet use matters in addressing digital divide problem. I mean, why should we care about the fact that Blacks use the Internet less for communication purpose? Is this gap really reinforcing or reproduing the existing social inequality?
Of course, less communication-related use of the Internet prevents one from forming weak ties on the web.
But, I think we should also pay attention to the potentional gap in internet use for informational purpose across social groups.
Posted by cj | November 4, 2006 8:21 PM
Posted on November 4, 2006 20:21
Your point about the cross-cultural comparison here is pretty interesting, considering the assumption (perhaps predominantly among marketers) that there is something culturally universal about the adolescent/teenage experience. Of course, if it were so simple, Coke would not have bet met with such resistance to its marketing efforts in India (see Mazzarella, 2003). New media products are kind of like any other product in that people may fit them into their lives in diverse ways.
As for municipal Wi-Fi and the $100 laptop project, I think we need to recall that access is only one of a few relevant factors. You mention content here, but I'm inclined to believe that basic computer skills are even more relevant. Some might argue that the solution here is to train people to use computers, but I'd argue that this is a problem that software developers need to address more than anyone else: making use of online resources requires intuitive user interfaces and functional applications. This task might fall more to the open source community than to commercial developers, who might be less interested in attracting those who don't already have computer skill (i.e., education and probably money).
Mazarella, W. (2003). Shoveling Smoke: Advertising and Globalization in Contemporary India. Duke University Press.
Posted by Green 27 | November 5, 2006 4:15 PM
Posted on November 5, 2006 16:15
Cross-cultural comparison is important. However, some caution must be considered, I think. I really do believe there are certain common factors to explain every human being. However, unique factors depending on the cultural dimensions must be acknowledged. In US, I am quite surprised at the fact that there are much more diverse cultural backgrounds and higher level of cultural tolerance than my home country. This is really the strength US has an advantage.
However, like the symbol of “salad bowl”, diverse culture was not integrated or interacted with each other. Jackson et al’s study, I think, also showed these segregated cultural dimensions. The wi-fi or mobile technologies can integrate the diversity, and solve the segmentation? I do hardly believe. The high correlation between cultural division and regional division (living areas are divided depending on the racial difference) might happen again online world.
Online world, the characteristics of participants’ reference group will also be easily seen (For example, see the online literature about SIDE). Technology can be helpful to solve the segmentation problem, but the technology alone cannot solve it. A little pessimistic, however, I am really worried that might be not wrong.
Posted by y14 | November 5, 2006 11:52 PM
Posted on November 5, 2006 23:52